» Articles » PMID: 39347274

Ultrasound-Guided Fascia Iliaca Block Versus Pericapsular Nerve Group Block Before Positioning for Spinal Anesthesia in Patients Undergoing Surgery for Neck of Femur Fracture: A Comparative Study

Overview
Journal Cureus
Date 2024 Sep 30
PMID 39347274
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Introduction Positioning patients with femur fractures for spinal anesthesia can be challenging due to pain. Regional anesthesia techniques, such as the fascia iliaca compartment block (FICB) and pericapsular nerve group block (PENG), have facilitated patient positioning and improved analgesia. This study compared the efficacy of ultrasound-guided FICB and PENG for pain management during the positioning of the patient for spinal anesthesia in neck of femur fracture surgeries. Aim of the study Ultrasound-guided fascia iliaca compartment block versus pericapsular nerve group block before positioning for spinal anesthesia in the neck of femur fracture surgeries. Materials and methods This prospective, randomized, single-blinded, and comparative study was conducted at Dr. DY Patil Hospital, Pune, from November 2022 to January 2024 and included 60 patients with neck and femur fractures scheduled for surgery under spinal anesthesia. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either ultrasound-guided FICB (n = 30) or PENG (n = 30) with 0.25% 20 ml of bupivacaine before positioning for spinal anesthesia. The primary outcome was to assess the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score for pain before and after the block. Secondary outcomes included assessment of hemodynamic parameters, patient satisfaction, and adverse effects. Results The number of days since fracture in FICB was 2.73±0.98 and in PENG was 3.37±1.9 was comparable with no significant difference between them (p-value =0.11). The mean VAS score after the block was significantly lower in the PENG group compared to the FICB group (3.33±1.73 vs. 4.43±1.3, p = 0.007), indicating better pain relief with PENG. Both techniques were comparable in terms of hemodynamic stability. Patient satisfaction was high and similar in both groups. No significant adverse effects were reported. Conclusion This study observed that the ultrasound-guided pericapsular nerve group block was superior to the fascia iliaca block in providing better analgesia, good patient satisfaction, and hemodynamic stability during positioning for spinal anesthesia.

Citing Articles

Impact of dietary on performance, antioxidant status, carcass traits and pathological alteration in broilers exposed to ochratoxin A stress.

Salah A, El-Tarabany M, Mostafa M, Zaki R, Azzam M, El Euony O Front Vet Sci. 2025; 11:1532353.

PMID: 39944933 PMC: 11813880. DOI: 10.3389/fvets.2024.1532353.

References
1.
Andrade P, Lombardi R, Marques I, Braga A, Isaias B, Heiser N . Pericapsular Nerve Group (PENG) block versus fascia iliaca compartment (FI) block for hip surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Braz J Anesthesiol. 2023; 73(6):794-809. PMC: 10625158. DOI: 10.1016/j.bjane.2023.07.007. View

2.
Mosaffa F, Taheri M, Manafi Rasi A, Samadpour H, Memary E, Mirkheshti A . Comparison of pericapsular nerve group (PENG) block with fascia iliaca compartment block (FICB) for pain control in hip fractures: A double-blind prospective randomized controlled clinical trial. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2021; 108(1):103135. DOI: 10.1016/j.otsr.2021.103135. View

3.
Dalens B, Vanneuville G, Tanguy A . Comparison of the fascia iliaca compartment block with the 3-in-1 block in children. Anesth Analg. 1989; 69(6):705-13. View

4.
Urwin S, Parker M, Griffiths R . General versus regional anaesthesia for hip fracture surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized trials. Br J Anaesth. 2000; 84(4):450-5. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.bja.a013468. View

5.
Keskes M, Ali Mtibaa M, Abid A, Sahnoun N, Ketata S, Derbel R . Pericapsular nerve group block versus fascia iliaca block for perioperative analgesia in hip fracture surgery: a prospective randomized trial. Pan Afr Med J. 2024; 46:93. PMC: 10891367. DOI: 10.11604/pamj.2023.46.93.41117. View